|
So yea. They can ask for rights to their child, a Judge will probably just say something like, "You're admitting to the rape? Then that's new evidence. As such you can go back to court and I'm denying your right to custody of the kid." That is completely dependent on the judge. I doubt a sane one would give rights to the rapist.
Lets talk about your "stats" http://socialismartnature.tumblr.com/post/30840803485/dont-believe-rape-culture-is-real-here-are-some I see no mention of where this data was obtained. I can't verify it. Out of every single one of my male friends not a single one would rape a woman or even have sex with one that was black out drunk. Hell half of them have issues picking a chick up and most time just play video games and watch porn to pass time. They're all college age.
This one. http://25.media.tumblr.com/924c1c31580d677e482ee01d5933616f/tumblr_mg9u3rPNKJ1rmjxl5o1_500.jpg
Nice picture. Evidence doesn't support that. If rapes go unreported where are they getting the number from? 99% of aliens visiting earth go unreported. 100% of modern day God smiting people by turning them into salt go unreported.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/70deea41e8a2698a3089ce6090ca1e58/tumblr_mk1a07doiv1qbzg93o1_500.jpg
Again, how do you know how many are getting not-reported? You can use made up evidence to create anything such as 100% of those unreported aliens were green eyed dancing martians that looked like norse gods.
Campus rape rates have dropped which can be seen in the earlier evidence I posted, that evidence is from the US government. One/two Politicians doesn't mean lots of politicians. He got heckled out of office I think. I might be wrong though.
Tumblr isn't the best source for... sources. The government does a decent job at it because they have an accurate census report.
Yea Todd Akin is out of office. He is no longer a politician.
|
On November 08 2013 00:40 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 00:38 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On November 08 2013 00:30 Zealos wrote:On November 08 2013 00:28 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On November 08 2013 00:27 Zealos wrote:On November 08 2013 00:21 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On November 08 2013 00:11 Zealos wrote:On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote:
Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius. Let me ask you this: When this theoretical person gets mugged, or stabbed, and s/he goes to the police, do they immediately doubt her? http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/rape-victims-virginia-assumed-be-lyingIf DNA tests are needed to verify who the attacker is, will the police not even bother having the DNA tested after it is taken? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/opinion/untested-rape-kits-delay-justice.html?_r=0And then in the court, will they then, as a defense, ask questions of why the person was taking the risk, when it is clearly a bad idea? (Why were you wearing this underwear http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-129105/Rape-girl-driven-suicide-ordeal-court.html ) (Why did you get that drunk? http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2013/03/16/rape-crime-drinking-alcohol-is ) Also, please try to retain some level of self control when debating over the internet, you just make yourself look childish. Actually yes. Police are notorious for not doing anything when someone gets mugged at least in Dallas. Happens often in Denver too. Those are the two big cities I've lived next to and have had friends get mugged in. The most you'll get is a report, they'll ask for a description; if the mugger wasn't wearing a mask they'll keep the description and then just do nothing but increase the patrol in the area for a few days. As long as you weren't stabbed or shot they won't get too serious about it. You might as well call it crime culture because lets face it, criminals that wear gloves and have masks and target people walking alone at night aren't gonna get caught if they have any intelligence. First off, I have no idea what the rates of the police not acting are like comparatively between muggings and rape. Could you cite some sources or something that I can read? On top of this, you've only responded to one part of the post that I made. Not to mention, there is not a great deal more that they can do against a mugger. This is not the same as them doubting what you are saying, or assuming your reports to be false. You just mentioned mugging... How you can compare them then say they can't be compared... What do you mean? You said "Let me ask you this: When this theoretical person gets mugged, or stabbed, and s/he goes to the police, do they immediately doubt her? http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/rape-victims-virginia-assumed-be-lying" MUGGED. Right there. You put "mugged" in a sentence as if you were comparing things. Then you say you can't compare things to "mugged" the thing you compared things too. Quite often a police officer will treat a fire as a self inflicted crime done to get insurance money. Yes. I did. I was wondering where I said they can't be compared?
Ope. I misread it. My bad.
|
Have you read the sources they show at the bottom of the pictures and posts?
One of the places they get them from is here: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
There are several sources at the bottom of that page too. Please take the time to actually read the sources, instead of pretending they don't exist.
On November 08 2013 00:53 Nacl(Draq) wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 00:40 Zealos wrote:On November 08 2013 00:38 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On November 08 2013 00:30 Zealos wrote:On November 08 2013 00:28 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On November 08 2013 00:27 Zealos wrote:On November 08 2013 00:21 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On November 08 2013 00:11 Zealos wrote:On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote:
Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius. Let me ask you this: When this theoretical person gets mugged, or stabbed, and s/he goes to the police, do they immediately doubt her? http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/rape-victims-virginia-assumed-be-lyingIf DNA tests are needed to verify who the attacker is, will the police not even bother having the DNA tested after it is taken? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/opinion/untested-rape-kits-delay-justice.html?_r=0And then in the court, will they then, as a defense, ask questions of why the person was taking the risk, when it is clearly a bad idea? (Why were you wearing this underwear http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-129105/Rape-girl-driven-suicide-ordeal-court.html ) (Why did you get that drunk? http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2013/03/16/rape-crime-drinking-alcohol-is ) Also, please try to retain some level of self control when debating over the internet, you just make yourself look childish. Actually yes. Police are notorious for not doing anything when someone gets mugged at least in Dallas. Happens often in Denver too. Those are the two big cities I've lived next to and have had friends get mugged in. The most you'll get is a report, they'll ask for a description; if the mugger wasn't wearing a mask they'll keep the description and then just do nothing but increase the patrol in the area for a few days. As long as you weren't stabbed or shot they won't get too serious about it. You might as well call it crime culture because lets face it, criminals that wear gloves and have masks and target people walking alone at night aren't gonna get caught if they have any intelligence. First off, I have no idea what the rates of the police not acting are like comparatively between muggings and rape. Could you cite some sources or something that I can read? On top of this, you've only responded to one part of the post that I made. Not to mention, there is not a great deal more that they can do against a mugger. This is not the same as them doubting what you are saying, or assuming your reports to be false. You just mentioned mugging... How you can compare them then say they can't be compared... What do you mean? You said "Let me ask you this: When this theoretical person gets mugged, or stabbed, and s/he goes to the police, do they immediately doubt her? http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/rape-victims-virginia-assumed-be-lying" MUGGED. Right there. You put "mugged" in a sentence as if you were comparing things. Then you say you can't compare things to "mugged" the thing you compared things too. Quite often a police officer will treat a fire as a self inflicted crime done to get insurance money. Yes. I did. I was wondering where I said they can't be compared? Ope. I misread it. My bad.
No worries : D
|
On November 08 2013 00:57 Zealos wrote:Have you read the sources they show at the bottom of the pictures and posts? One of the places they get them from is here: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates There are several sources at the bottom of that page too. Please take the time to actually read the sources, instead of pretending they don't exist. Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 00:53 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On November 08 2013 00:40 Zealos wrote:On November 08 2013 00:38 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On November 08 2013 00:30 Zealos wrote:On November 08 2013 00:28 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On November 08 2013 00:27 Zealos wrote:On November 08 2013 00:21 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On November 08 2013 00:11 Zealos wrote:On November 07 2013 23:41 heliusx wrote:
Who the fuck said anything about its anyone's responsibility to not be raped? You're the one saying that shit. If I tell someone hey don't go into that part of town its dangerous. I'm not saying its his responsibility to not be mugged I'm saying hey stupid if you go there you are increasing your chances of something bad happening. If you can't get that simple idea through your thick ass skull you have no business arguing anything in this thread. I mean you're so adamant that rape culture is so prevalent but here you are strawmanning and showing stupid ads from 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment genius. Let me ask you this: When this theoretical person gets mugged, or stabbed, and s/he goes to the police, do they immediately doubt her? http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/rape-victims-virginia-assumed-be-lyingIf DNA tests are needed to verify who the attacker is, will the police not even bother having the DNA tested after it is taken? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/opinion/untested-rape-kits-delay-justice.html?_r=0And then in the court, will they then, as a defense, ask questions of why the person was taking the risk, when it is clearly a bad idea? (Why were you wearing this underwear http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-129105/Rape-girl-driven-suicide-ordeal-court.html ) (Why did you get that drunk? http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2013/03/16/rape-crime-drinking-alcohol-is ) Also, please try to retain some level of self control when debating over the internet, you just make yourself look childish. Actually yes. Police are notorious for not doing anything when someone gets mugged at least in Dallas. Happens often in Denver too. Those are the two big cities I've lived next to and have had friends get mugged in. The most you'll get is a report, they'll ask for a description; if the mugger wasn't wearing a mask they'll keep the description and then just do nothing but increase the patrol in the area for a few days. As long as you weren't stabbed or shot they won't get too serious about it. You might as well call it crime culture because lets face it, criminals that wear gloves and have masks and target people walking alone at night aren't gonna get caught if they have any intelligence. First off, I have no idea what the rates of the police not acting are like comparatively between muggings and rape. Could you cite some sources or something that I can read? On top of this, you've only responded to one part of the post that I made. Not to mention, there is not a great deal more that they can do against a mugger. This is not the same as them doubting what you are saying, or assuming your reports to be false. You just mentioned mugging... How you can compare them then say they can't be compared... What do you mean? You said "Let me ask you this: When this theoretical person gets mugged, or stabbed, and s/he goes to the police, do they immediately doubt her? http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/rape-victims-virginia-assumed-be-lying" MUGGED. Right there. You put "mugged" in a sentence as if you were comparing things. Then you say you can't compare things to "mugged" the thing you compared things too. Quite often a police officer will treat a fire as a self inflicted crime done to get insurance money. Yes. I did. I was wondering where I said they can't be compared? Ope. I misread it. My bad. No worries : D
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf
States 51% of rape is reported then the thing you linked said only 40/100 get reported. It's off by 20%
But it looks like they have a decent way of surveying. I don't know the exact accuracy but neither do they. So statistically speaking they're probably good.
|
You're looking at violent crime, not rape.
|
On November 08 2013 01:04 Zealos wrote:
You're looking at violent crime, not rape.
Yea 49% in 2010 then 27% in 2011 and 2002 55%. That deviation...
If you're not reporting a crime, you have no reason to be upset that the person didn't get caught. Things don't magically happen. Tumblr should probably talk more about making sure crimes get reported.
|
On November 08 2013 00:51 Nacl(Draq) wrote: So yea. They can ask for rights to their child, a Judge will probably just say something like, "You're admitting to the rape? Then that's new evidence. As such you can go back to court and I'm denying your right to custody of the kid." That is completely dependent on the judge. I doubt a sane one would give rights to the rapist.
You'd think so, wouldn't you.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/21/60457.htm
To be honest though, even the fact they are allowed is pretty sad.
|
On November 08 2013 01:08 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 00:51 Nacl(Draq) wrote: So yea. They can ask for rights to their child, a Judge will probably just say something like, "You're admitting to the rape? Then that's new evidence. As such you can go back to court and I'm denying your right to custody of the kid." That is completely dependent on the judge. I doubt a sane one would give rights to the rapist. You'd think so, wouldn't you. http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/21/60457.htmTo be honest though, even the fact they are allowed is pretty sad.
Yea it's pretty shitty. I would have taken the deal of not taking the 110 dollars a week in child support.
"After a family court judge ordered Melendez to pay $110 a week in child support, Melendez asked for visitation rights, and offered to withdraw his request in exchange for not having to pay child support, according to the lawsuit."
Judge is a judge... I don't know how well he judges though.
|
You have to have nearly without a doubt evidence in order to convict someone. Sometimes it is even required to make an arrest. So I'm not surprised these crimes lack strong evidence to make an arrest. It doesn't mean we should change the legal system just means we need to have ways to get more concrete evidence.
So we can really only look at the 40 that were reported. You can't do anything if a report was never filed.
3/40 is still a low number. 8/40 go to court so 1/5 have strong enough evidence to convict them. The rest is up to lawyers.
|
On November 08 2013 00:40 Zealos wrote:
You also convinently ignore points that don't suit you. In 31 states the rapist can sue for rights to see the child of the raped women. Can you understand that only in a culture where rape is normalized, that men who rape a women are able to sue the women so that he can take custody of the child?
I've been googling a bit for a source for this statement and the best thing I can find is an open letter by a woman who says she was raped, got pregnant and kept the baby. She does not explain her assertion other than saying "there are no laws preventing it".
There are two problems with what she's saying. First, her alleged rapist was never convicted. So, in the eyes of the law, he is not a rapist. She argues in her letter that women may decide to drop charges as a private deal with their alleged rapists, in order to not have to go through the custody battle. Again she is speaking of people who are not convicted rapists. People who are not convicted rapists should have the ability to sue for custody of their children. Since I haven't found any facts besides her own assertion, I can't confirm whether it is alleged rapists or convicted rapists that in these 31 states enjoy the right to sue.
Second problem is that all she's saying is that there's no law against suing. As in, it is not expressly forbidden. That doesn't mean it will have a chance of actually succeeding in court. There are a lot of things that, while legal to sue for, will get thrown out of court immediately. If this is indeed about convicted rapists, I get the feeling such lawsuits would get exactly that treatment.
The third and final problem is with what you are saying. Having the possibility to sue does not mean rape is normalized. If you really think so, then clearly you don't know what the word normalized means. Here, let me help you: http://onelook.com/?w=normalize&ls=a
This was posted after I started writing the above, but I can chip in here as well. A father who pays child support should absolutely have visitation rights. Since he was convicted, I would assume she was granted damages for the rape. It would also be reasonable to make the rapist pay for the abortion, if she chose to have one. But she didn't. She just tried to milk him for an even greater legal punishment than the one he actually got when he stood trial for his crime.
|
On November 07 2013 21:26 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 13:44 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:On November 07 2013 13:38 Mothra wrote:
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Justifiable or not, don't you think that someone is capable of provoking another into murder? Though it is probably a culmination of many things, just as rape probably has a number of causes leading up to it.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
Thanks that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, although I'll take it on faith that you are getting this information from credible sources.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore? Please stop classifying Rape as a violent crime. Rape is a sexual crime. http://oag.ca.gov/publications/womansrights/ch7At least do the minimum amount of research. Rape is a violent crime. Thank you in advance for you apologizing for spreading bullshit.
Nothing violent about a crime that rarely results in violence. If rape is a violent crime, laundering money is a violent crime by your logic.
|
anti rape mindwear for men only: dont rape
|
On November 08 2013 01:22 gedatsu wrote:The third and final problem is with what you are saying. Having the possibility to sue does not mean rape is normalized. If you really think so, then clearly you don't know what the word normalized means. Here, let me help you: http://onelook.com/?w=normalize&ls=a
There are a lot of factors that come together to normalize rape.
Also, no, stopping a man who has RAPED you from visiting your child is in no way "milking" for further punishment. A little common sense, a man who has caused huge damage to you mentally and physically, should not be given a right to spend time with your family, causing the women a huge amount more grief.
On November 08 2013 01:32 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 21:26 Zealos wrote:On November 07 2013 13:44 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:On November 07 2013 13:38 Mothra wrote:
Because clothing can't make people do things... committing rape is an action taken by a person. There is no justifiable provocation for murder or rape among other things.
Justifiable or not, don't you think that someone is capable of provoking another into murder? Though it is probably a culmination of many things, just as rape probably has a number of causes leading up to it.
Some other key points would be that (on a society wide level) many countries where women are socially forced to completely cover themselves experience a lot of sex crime. mind you they still manage to blame it on them for showing off their ankles etc. that lying slut. Additionally the kind of rapist that rapes a stranger is not a significant percentage, and if that person is looking/hunting for some cue then someone better warn women not to smile at strangers.
Thanks that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, although I'll take it on faith that you are getting this information from credible sources.
I picked up the vibe your putting down of the guy who totally hates rape but isn't it possible we can blame the victim just a little? but I have to ask; why?? You say we can't just blame the victim or the rapist (lol like that was a hard choice) and wash our hands clean but I don't think we are washing our hands after we blame the rapist. we would just work harder to make less rapists in the future. Most men manage to control themselves all the time. Many men enjoy looking at sexily dressed sexy ladies. You ask for sources but you provide no evidence that scantily clad women contribute to an increase in rape. You are making the positive assertion. And you are mistaken.
I don't understand getting so hung up on blame. Rape is a violent crime, and it should be punished as such. Does blaming harder help to stop rape? I was not making an empirical assertion but a logical argument. I'm having a hard time following yours. Many men control themselves, many men enjoy looking at scantily clad women... therefore? Please stop classifying Rape as a violent crime. Rape is a sexual crime. http://oag.ca.gov/publications/womansrights/ch7At least do the minimum amount of research. Rape is a violent crime. Thank you in advance for you apologizing for spreading bullshit. Nothing violent about a crime that rarely results in violence. If rape is a violent crime, laundering money is a violent crime by your logic.
I don't think you understand how the law works, but if you fancy reading the link, that would be just fabulous.
Rape is a violent crime. That is a /fact/
|
On November 08 2013 01:08 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 00:51 Nacl(Draq) wrote: So yea. They can ask for rights to their child, a Judge will probably just say something like, "You're admitting to the rape? Then that's new evidence. As such you can go back to court and I'm denying your right to custody of the kid." That is completely dependent on the judge. I doubt a sane one would give rights to the rapist. You'd think so, wouldn't you. http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/21/60457.htmTo be honest though, even the fact they are allowed is pretty sad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Zachary:_A_Letter_to_a_Son_About_His_Father
Courts do fucked up things all the time, judging society by the actions of some insane judges is... not clever.
|
On November 08 2013 01:39 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 01:22 gedatsu wrote:The third and final problem is with what you are saying. Having the possibility to sue does not mean rape is normalized. If you really think so, then clearly you don't know what the word normalized means. Here, let me help you: http://onelook.com/?w=normalize&ls=a There are a lot of factors that come together to normalize rape.
But rape isn't normalized in any publicly visible setting, except prisons.
Also, no, stopping a man who has RAPED you from visiting your child is in no way "milking" for further punishment. A little common sense, a man who has caused huge damage to you mentally and physically, should not be given a right to spend time with your family, causing the women a huge amount more grief.
I didn't say that "stopping a man who has RAPED you from visiting your child" was milking them for further punishment. I said that forcing him to pay child support was.
|
On November 08 2013 01:51 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 01:39 Zealos wrote:On November 08 2013 01:22 gedatsu wrote:The third and final problem is with what you are saying. Having the possibility to sue does not mean rape is normalized. If you really think so, then clearly you don't know what the word normalized means. Here, let me help you: http://onelook.com/?w=normalize&ls=a There are a lot of factors that come together to normalize rape. But rape isn't normalized in any publicly visible setting, except prisons. Show nested quote +Also, no, stopping a man who has RAPED you from visiting your child is in no way "milking" for further punishment. A little common sense, a man who has caused huge damage to you mentally and physically, should not be given a right to spend time with your family, causing the women a huge amount more grief. I didn't say that "stopping a man who has RAPED you from visiting your child" was milking them for further punishment. I said that forcing him to pay child support was.
How is not joking and talking about it as if it is nothing not normalizing it?
Yeah, I guess that makes sense then.
|
Gg if you're super wasted and have diarrhea
|
Netherlands6181 Posts
Oh my god, what? Rapists can see their child? They can take custody of their child?
What the actual fuck. This thread is opening my eyes.
|
Threads like this show me why women have so many problems with men.
|
On November 08 2013 01:53 Zealos wrote:
How is not joking and talking about it as if it is nothing not normalizing it?
Disregarding rape in prison settings, very few people do that. Usually they are the rapist, an accessory to the rape, or a close relative or friend to the rapist. These are, on the large scale of things, only a handful of people. By far the majority of people strongly condemn rape. Convicted rapists often require special protection in prison, because the other inmates will consider them the scum of the earth.
Or perhaps you are talking about jokes made about people you've never met and never will meet. I myself have told jokes about the Fritzl case, for example, because there's a clever pun about it that can be made in Swedish. "Har du släckt i källaren" means "did you turn off the lights in the basement", while "har du släkt i källaren" means "do you have family (members) in the basement". That doesn't mean I don't think it was a horrible crime. It's no different than making jokes about Hitler or slavery or Mao.
Anyway. The point is that you can joke about anything, without supporting the crime or disaster behind it. Very few people would laugh in the face of the victim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
